Coronavirus (OLD)

[pip08456]

Which figures though? Current flawed testing results due to false positves?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13...-tynside-corby

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

Which figures though? Current flawed testing results due to false positves?

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/13...-tynside-corby

There’s no real evidence that false positives are a significant proportion of all results, or that false positives are doubling every 8 days (or even increasing) as a proportion of all positive tests.

One of the key assumptions behind the theoretical piece is that hospitalisation aren’t rising. They now are, and in France and Spain they are seeing increased deaths. Again I ask the question of what will make our experience different?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by jfman

There’s no real evidence that false positives are a significant proportion of all results, or that false positives are doubling every 8 days (or even increasing) as a proportion of all positive tests.

One of the key assumptions behind the theoretical piece is that hospitalisation aren’t rising. They now are, and in France and Spain they are seeing increased deaths. Again I ask the question of what will make our experience different?

In terms of hospitalisations, it should also be noted that

Sky News Nightingale hospital on 'high alert'
The NHS Nightingale Hospital in Birmingham has been put on a "higher alert" status, meaning it can be ready for use within 48 to 72 hours.

[Taf]

Originally Posted by Kushan

Has anyone linked this discussion point yet? I think it's rather interesting: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-h...y-researchers/



TL;DR - Wearing a mask and having others around you wear masks seems to be granting people immunity to the virus by minimising exposure to it.

Completely unproven at this point, of course, but yet another good reason to wear a mask.

Viral load can be very important as to whether our immune systems can fight and win. So I think they may have something with this idea that masks help.

---------- Post added at 17:54 ---------- Previous post was at 17:52 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

One of the key assumptions behind the theoretical piece is that hospitalisation aren’t rising. They now are, and in France and Spain they are seeing increased deaths. Again I ask the question of what will make our experience different?

French radio just gave new information that over 50% of the population in Care Homes there died within the first few weeks of the first spike. Whereas the "normal" rate was under 15%.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

In terms of hospitalisations, it should also be noted that

WOW! 200 staff to look after to look after 51 patients again. (sorry, that was London). Birmingham never had one patient although the staff were there.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

WOW! 200 staff to look after to look after 51 patients again. (sorry, that was London). Birmingham never had one patient although the staff were there.

And it took a lockdown to prevent these being required.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

And it took a lockdown to prevent these being required.

So on that basis the alleged second wave will be larger than the first?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

So on that basis the alleged second wave will be larger than the first?

I don’t follow your logic. How bad the second wave is depends on the effectiveness of the response by Government and compliance from public in respect of distancing etc. This is not known at this stage.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

the Government can only follow the evidence base that led to lockdown the first time.

Originally Posted by jfman

The best set of figures available from the Government,.

Originally Posted by Also.jfman

It’s somewhat naive of you to simply take everything Government says at face value

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t follow your logic. How bad the second wave is depends on the effectiveness of the response by Government and compliance from public in respect of distancing etc. This is not known at this stage.

The logic is simple. During the onset of corona virus the Government set up 5 "Nightingale" units to look after the overflow from NHS hopitals during the epidemic, there were also 2 others set up slightly later.

The only unit to be used was the London one which had 200 full time staff for an eventual 51 patients during the time it was in operation. It then like the other 6 sites were mothballed but not decommissioned just in case.

So, following logic, if the Birmingham Nightingale unit is to be brought out of mothballing and staffed then it follows that it is considered the number of cases will be larger then when the covid epidemic began.

ERGO the alleged second wave will be larger than the first.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

In terms of hospitalisations, it should also be noted that

So no major rise In hospitalisations yet then

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

three quotes from me

They can provide the best data available, despite it being healthy to be sceptical. You are falling into the trap of others by dealing with everything in black and white in a world of grey.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Pierre

So no major rise In hospitalisations yet then

Don't you just love the "Higher alert" status. At present they are "mothballed" which means no staff, they are just there waiting for use. To use them there needs to be a supply of staff who were either laid off (agentcy) or sent back to normal working in the hospitals.

Selective media reporting methinks.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by pip08456

The logic is simple. During the onset of corona virus the Government set up 5 "Nightingale" units to look after the overflow from NHS hopitals during the epidemic, there were also 2 others set up slightly later.

The only unit to be used was the London one which had 200 full time staff for an eventual 51 patients during the time it was in operation. It then like the other 6 sites were mothballed but not decommissioned just in case.

So, following logic, if the Birmingham Nightingale unit is to be brought out of mothballing and staffed then it follows that it is considered the number of cases will be larger then when the covid epidemic began.

ERGO the alleged second wave will be larger than the first.

I don’t think all of those things necessarily flow from each other. The Birmingham unit being brought out of mothballing (and indeed any other) is risk management based on current data.

I’m not sure decisions can be compared with March.

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by jfman

I don’t think all of those things necessarily flow from each other. The Birmingham unit being brought out of mothballing (and indeed any other) is risk management based on current data.

I’m not sure decisions can be compared with March.

Then please explain the flaw in my logic.